It was pointed out that "fair share when competing with itself" may be a difficult goal, and that "fair share when competing with other protocols" is not likely to be possible. (It certainly is not possible if "other protocol" is unconstrained). I suggest splitting this item into multiples. - fair share when competing with itself - reasonable share when competing with other RT protocols - Idealy (but may not be feasible) a reasonable share when competing with TCP and other protocols. Also, I'm going to keep saying this: - Techniques to detect, instrument or diagnose failing to meet RT schedules due to failures of components out side of the charter scope, possibly in collaboration with IPPM. because this is the key to causing others to change the parts that are out of scope. Thanks, --MM-- The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
Hi all,
There were two minimal changes to the charter, which is at: https://sites.google.com/a/alvestrand.com/rtp-congestion/bof-planning-page/w...
It now explicitly says that the following are out of scope: * Active queue management; modifications to TCP of any kind; and * Multicast congestion control (common control of multiple unicast flows is in scope).
Other than that, the charter hasn't changed since the last version that was sent around in May.
Cheers, Michael
_______________________________________________ Rtp-congestion mailing list Rtp-congestion@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion